• Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech

GT40 heads and rocker question??

  • Thread starter Thread starter a1yola
  • Start date Start date Apr 17, 2006
A

a1yola

New Member
Feb 10, 2004
19
0
0
Apr 17, 2006
#1
  • Apr 17, 2006
  • #1
I am planning on installing some GT40 heads onto my car. The block is stock and it has a very mild cam (unknown specs) still using the stock heads and rockers.

My question is:
Can I install the GT40 heads and use the stock (non GT40) rockers from my stock heads? I am assuming that they will work since I have no problems with them on the stock heads, with the current cam, but I want to make sure.

Also, if I were to use some 1.6 or 1.7 roller rockers, will it be safe since I do not know the specs on the cam? Thanks.
 
J

Jack's95gt

Member
Aug 15, 2004
443
1
18
Huntingdon Valley, PA
Apr 17, 2006
#2
  • Apr 17, 2006
  • #2
That's no problem using the stock rockers on the GT40 heads. They still use the same pedistal mounts for the rockers.
 
A

a1yola

New Member
Feb 10, 2004
19
0
0
Apr 17, 2006
#3
  • Apr 17, 2006
  • #3
would you know the performance difference if I used aftermarket 1.6 roller rockers opposed to the stockers?
 
D

dstang01

Member
Sep 22, 2005
170
0
16
Vancouver, BC
Mar 22, 2008
#4
  • Mar 22, 2008
  • #4
a1yola said:
would you know the performance difference if I used aftermarket 1.6 roller rockers opposed to the stockers?
Click to expand...

old thread i know, but Im looking for the same answer
 

NIKwoaC

中國製造
15 Year Member
Oct 31, 2006
5,525
943
214
Chengdu Province
Mar 22, 2008
#5
  • Mar 22, 2008
  • #5
There was JUST a thread on this like 2 days ago.

Stock rockers are non roller, stamped, and sloppy. The 1.6 RRs are more efficient, produce less friction and heat, and are more accurate because of their higher stiffness being a solid piece rather than stamped. However, 1.6 ratio is equivalent to the stock ratio, so there is no real flow advantage in them. Some sources say the stock rockers can flex and produce less than 1.6 ratio. Of this I’m not sure.

This being said, the most improvement I’ve seen in a dyno test using 1.7 RRs (larger than stock, therefore making more valve lift) over stock is less than 10HP gain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Oil burning on my recently buil 302
  • The blk67
  • May 15, 2026
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
3
Views
149
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech May 15, 2026
Noobz347
9
Engine Donor '00 Mountaineer meet '91 Fox
  • 91firecracker
  • May 11, 2026
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
  • 2 3
Replies
41
Views
862
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech May 28, 2026
91firecracker
9
A
Discussion on mild budget build/ top end
  • Acesario
  • Feb 21, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2
Replies
20
Views
718
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Feb 23, 2026
General karthief
Engine Pushrod Length?
  • foxbodyclark
  • Jan 25, 2025
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
1
Views
353
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Jan 25, 2025
limp
Engine Suggestions on an engine rebuild. Stock cam/GT40Ps or aftermarket on both for a fun weekend driver?
  • MadSquirrelTech
  • Apr 28, 2026
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
  • 2
Replies
23
Views
796
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech May 7, 2026
MadSquirrelTech
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?